But, according to Farley, Goldwater-Nichols failed to solve the dual problems of procurement and training. By law, the services have their own budgets for acquiring weapons and recruiting and training personnel.
The separation of the Army and Air Force happened before my time in the military. However, it was always a matter of discussion. The Army, my service, was interested in air power as "fire support". In other words, the operation receives timely and targeted air support to advance any particular operation ongoing at that time. That is a good argument for having left the two services as one, but I think the answer touched on in this article is better.
Inter-operability is one thing, but interoperability is really about unity of effort.
There is a huge argument to be made for unity so that we truly train as we fight.
A combined service did not hurt WWII at all. They managed in less than 4 years what we've not been able to accomplish yet in Afghanistan.
“A combined service did not hurt WWII at all. They managed in less than 4 years what we’ve not been able to accomplish yet in Afghanistan.”
It has absolutely nothing to do with that, and I think you know it.
“They managed in less than 4 years what we’ve not been able to accomplish yet in Afghanistan. “
In WWII we had political will and the backing of the American people and the press. Most importantly, the object was to KILL the ENEMY. In Afghanistan we have none of the will, the backing or the support of the press. We’ve sent our soldiers into war with both hands tied behind their backs and instructions not to kill anybody. We need to get out of that war as we can’t possibly win it with the current administration and we’ll never win it without acknowledging who and WHAT the enemy is.
Any military is only as strong as the leadership responsible for unleashing its power.
With Mr. Mom Jeans in charge, fighting and winning wars is no longer a priority. The implementation of social change in the ranks is the order of the day.
The painful lessons of WWII taught us that, while battles can be won on the ground, wars are won by controlling the sky.
The people who realized that we would be better off with our current military structure, came to their conclusions by a trial by fire, not an academic paper.
Putin has shown the world rather conclusively that we are not quite as secure as we thought we were. I would be hesitant to leave the lessons of the past behind. Our military struggles since WWII have more to do with political failings than military failings.
Maybe this academics next paper can be on, just what kind of Mom Jeans our pre_sent should wear...
“They managed in less than 4 years what we’ve not been able to accomplish yet in Afghanistan. “
Pure nonsense.
People have tried to do what we did in Afghanistan for a couple thousand years and haven’t managed it. We did it and then retreated.
The Army doesn’t understand air power and the Air Force doesn’t understand boots on the ground in large numbers.
Hence this is more a "problem" (if it really is one) of communication and camaraderie in objectives than it is a matter of structure.
BTW, the USAF has always been rather lukewarm to the idea of close air support, preferring to leave that to carrier-based Marine flyers.
Case in point: The A-10. The USAF hates the damn thing. Always has. As soon as decently possible, they sent it out to ANG units. I mean the thing is ugly, it can barely make 500mph in a dive, and operates at low altitude. Blows up tanks. BFD. Yuck-O. The real AF is at 50,000+, flying at Mach3, and using missiles to shoot down the enemies of uhmerrika! It must be flown by blond, blue-eyed guys who are not satisfied with one nickname like "Biff," but must have a flier handle, as well, "Trash-Hog," "Busterface", "Slobbo," etc.
The A-10 belongs in something like the old USAAF, but according to the "Treaty of Key West," the Army got missiles and helos, no fixed wing stuff with guns or bombs on it. One other thing: Nobody could wear brown shoes, anymore and that's final. Nobody, got it?
That's true, but that is hugely myopic!
1. What about air superiority? How can you direct fire to support the army when the enemy owns the air? The Army hasn't been bombed by another nation's air force since WWII. That would change if air superiority was not mission number 1.
2. Strategic bombing would be the job of who? Did you know the B-2 can fly from its base in Missouri with a full payload ANYWHERE in the world and be home for supper? How would a ground commander make up a mission list for the B2, use it on the front lines? A multi billion $ aircraft?
3. Strategic Airlift. The navy owns sealift, so I suppose the army could do airlift. Still, it's something far beyond fire support.
4. If doing away with the USAF makes sense, then doing away with the Army and Navy also makes sense. We could be like Canada. Just ONE military service. The same argument the professor uses here is the one the Canadians pushed through to go to their one size fits all military.